Allowed

Arumugam Sivalingam v. State Rep.by

Madras HC26 Aug 2020CRL RC/526/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision to set aside an order denying custody of a hypothecated vehicle. It directed that custody be granted upon deposit of half the vehicle's value, execution of a bond with sureties, and undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.06.2020 in C.M.P.No.78 of 2020 was set aside. Custody of the car was granted subject to deposit of Rs.2,50,000 execution of bond with sureties, and undertaking regarding vehicle use

Arumugam Sivalingam Vs State Rep.by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.526 of 2020

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station. (Crime No.67 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

2.Supreme City Investment, No.5, Appachi Nagar, 1^st street, Kongu Main Road, Tiruppur – 641 607. ... Respondent/R.C. Book holder

¶9

(2^nd respondent impleaded as per order dated 26.08.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.5109 of 2020 in Crl.R.C.No.526 of 2020)

¶10

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 06.06.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.78 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Deepak

¶12

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶13

This criminal revision is filed to set aside the order dated 06.06.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.78 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore.

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and his nephew Dhanapal approached Swaminathan (de facto complainant) and promised to give him a brass urn with mystical properties that would bring wealth and prosperity and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ induced the de facto complainant to give Rs.5,00,000/- as

¶15

advance; believing them, the de facto complainant gave Rs.5,00,000/- as advance; on 05.02.2020, the duo called the de facto complainant to a place, to show the mystical urn that was kept in the car of the petitioner; the complainant became suspicious and lodged a complaint, pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.67 of 2020 was registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the petitioner was arrested and his car was seized by the police.

¶16

After the petitioner was released on bail, he filed a petition in C.M.P.No.78 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore, under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the car, which was dismissed on 06.06.2020, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

¶17

Heard Mr.G.R.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent/State.

¶18

On the directions of this Court, Supreme City Investment, which had provided finance to the petitioner for purchase of the car, was impleaded as the second respondent and Mr.Agilesh Kumar, Advocate, has entered appearance for the second respondent.

¶19

Mr.Agilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent has filed a counter dated 10.08.2020, wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶20

“2.The 2^nd respondent submit that the petitioner had purchased the While Desire vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 39 BL 9006. The petitioner had hypothecated his vehicle for a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- (Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) of the said vehicle from the 2^nd respondent for which he had issued cheques. The 2^nd respondent submits that the original R.C.book is with them.

¶21

3.The 2^nd respondent submits that the petitioner had informed him that the vehicle was seized in Crime No.67 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police and requested him to issue a letter stating that the vehicle was under hypothecation. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent had issued a letter on 20.03.2020 based on the request of the petitioner.

¶22

4.The 2^nd respondent submits that the petitioner is paying all the instalment till date and the account statement is produced herewith https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.”

¶23

It is seen that the car is now parked in the police station open to sun and rain.

¶24

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in view of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat¹ , this Court is of the view that interests of justice will be served, if the custody of the car is ordered to be given to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶25

(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore;

¶26

(ii) On such deposit, the trial Court shall redeposit the amount in a fixed deposit account in any nationalized bank so that the amount with accrued interest can be disbursed either to the petitioner or to the de facto complainant depending upon the outcome of the prosecution in Crime No.67 of 2020;

¶27

(iii The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of ) Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore, undertaking that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future. The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;

¶28

(iv) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the trial Court that he will not dispute the seizure of his car and he will not object to the prosecution marking the photographs of the car and photocopy of the R.C. book of the car in lieu of marking the car and the original R.C. book of the car, itself. The petitioner shall also state that he will not object to the witnesses identifying the car with the photos in lieu of identifying the car itself;

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

1(2002) 10 SCC 290

¶31

(v) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question without the permission of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore;

¶32

(vi) The petitioner shall take photograph of the
vehicle and the Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Coimbatore, shall certify the same for the
purpose marking during trial;
(vii The petitioner shall submit a photocopy of the
) original R.C. book of the car before the
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore; and
(vii The petitioner, on complying with the aforesaid
i) conditions, the Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Coimbatore, shall hand over the custody of the
car to the petitioner.
This petition is allowed in the above terms and the order
dated 06.06.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.78 of 2020 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore, is set aside.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsd
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
Crl.R.C.No.526 of 2020
SVI(CO)

¶33

Crl.R.C.No.526 of 2020

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GMY(23/09/2020)

Arumugam Sivalingam v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam Sivalingam v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sekar, 60 Yrs, Vs State Rep by

Iyappan Vs State Rep.by

Loganathan Vs State Rep by

S.Prabakaran Vs State by

Rajiv Gandhi Vs the State Rep. by Inspector of Police

D.Kannan Vs the State Represented by